Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.62 (2026)

Receiving evidence from intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

June 13, 1996

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 181 - 121st General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) No part of the contents, and no evidence derived from the contents, of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceedings in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of this state or of a political subdivision of this state, if the disclosure of that information is in violation of sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code.

(B) The contents, or any evidence derived from the contents, of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted pursuant to sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding held under the authority of this state, other than a proceeding or session of the grand jury, unless each party has been furnished not less than ten days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, with a copy of the interception warrant and the related application, or a written representation of a judge of a court of common pleas or of a prosecuting attorney or specifically designated assistant prosecuting attorney that an oral order for an interception has been granted pursuant to section 2933.57 of the Revised Code, under which the interception was authorized or approved. The judge or other officer conducting the trial, hearing, or other proceeding may waive the ten-day period if the judge or officer finds that it was not possible to furnish the party with the above information at least ten days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving the information.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: State v. Teitelbaum, 2016 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Teitelbaum, 2016 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “However, even if we were somehow persuaded that a motion to suppress filed on this basis would have been successful, Teitelbaum cannot show any reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.”

State v. Childs, 728 N.E.2d 379 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 2× “52, Childs argued that they were not properly admitted into evidence under R.C. 2933.62(A). The trial court denied the motion and admitted the tapes, but the appellate court reversed that decision on appeal.”

State v. Childs, 2000 Ohio 425 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 2× “52, Childs argued that they were not properly admitted into evidence under R.C. 2933.62(A). The trial court denied the motion and admitted the tapes, but the appellate court reversed that decision on appeal.”

State v. Hearing, 2023 Ohio 3704 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “{¶31} In Appellant’s thirteenth Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in finding Appellant waived the evidence exclusion required by R.C. §2933.62(A) by failing to file a timely Motion to Suppress.”

State v. Turner, 805 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “In this regard, Turner specifically claims that (1) Duncan’s warrantless search became illegal when it went from protected activity in a general chat room to an individual inquiry; (2) pursuant to R.C. 2933.62 and 2933.63, the police were required to get a search warrant when…”

State v. Clemons, 2011 Ohio 1177 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “R.C. 2933.62(A). Thus, the electronic surveillance statutes do not require exclusion of the statement if appellant did not exhibit an expectation that the communication was not subject to interception or if the circumstances do not justify such an expectation.”

State v. Payne, 2013 Ohio 5230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “See R.C. 2933.62(A), and R.C. 2933.63(A). {¶15} In Hauptstueck, 2011-Ohio-3502 , the Second District reviewed R.”

State v. Davies, 763 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “” Furthermore, even if Davies does not meet the definition of an “aggrieved person,” R.C. 2933.62(A) bans the admission of illegally intercepted communications “in any trial, hearing, or other proceedings in or before any court.”

Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.62(A): 7 cases

State v. Childs, 728 N.E.2d 379 (Ohio 2000). “52, Childs argued that they were not properly admitted into evidence under R.C. 2933.62(A). The trial court denied the motion and admitted the tapes, but the appellate court reversed that decision on appeal.”

State v. Teitelbaum, 2016 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “However, even if we were somehow persuaded that a motion to suppress filed on this basis would have been successful, Teitelbaum cannot show any reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.”

State v. Childs, 2000 Ohio 425 (Ohio 2000). “52, Childs argued that they were not properly admitted into evidence under R.C. 2933.62(A). The trial court denied the motion and admitted the tapes, but the appellate court reversed that decision on appeal.”

State v. Hearing, 2023 Ohio 3704 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶31} In Appellant’s thirteenth Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in finding Appellant waived the evidence exclusion required by R.C. §2933.62(A) by failing to file a timely Motion to Suppress.”

State v. Clemons, 2011 Ohio 1177 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “R.C. 2933.62(A). Thus, the electronic surveillance statutes do not require exclusion of the statement if appellant did not exhibit an expectation that the communication was not subject to interception or if the circumstances do not justify such an expectation.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.